toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:37 AM']Do yourself a favor and look her up. Look up her husband while you're at it. His name was Dietrich. [right][snapback]908003[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I already did. And your quotes from her don't help me in this discussion about NFP use among newlyweds. It only validates what nobody here is arguing, that a marriage can be valid without children and that you marry for love, not breeding. It doesn't adequately address the question of whether it is valid to practice NFP when you first get married, whether you should be able to provide before you get married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Ok, since I've already addressed the philophical and practical dimensions, to no avail, let's just skip past it all. Please show me where the Church teaches what you are proposing, namely, that a couple can't get married if they have to delay pregnancy right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 toledo_jesus alice von hildebrand freaking rocks. don't diss her. that said, I don't think anything era might has posted from her "defeats" anything. No, marriage is not merely about procreation, but, in essence, procreation is the heart of marriage (marriage... 'mater'.. mother/motherhod). If a couple cannot provide for a child as soon as they are married, then they ought to postpone the marriage. NFP is a method of spacing births, not avoiding birth completely (if you need to do that, then you need abstinence and might as well just postpone the wedding). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:44 AM']Ok, since I've already addressed the philophical and practical dimensions, to no avail, let's just skip past it all. Please show me where the Church teaches what you are proposing, namely, that a couple can't get married if they have to delay pregnancy right away. [right][snapback]908008[/snapback][/right] [/quote] If a couple truly NEEDS to delay having children right away, then that couple NEEDS to remain abstinent so as to not get pregnant. Thus, their marriage would be better postponed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:47 AM']that said, I don't think anything era might has posted from her "defeats" anything. [right][snapback]908013[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It wasn't meant to "defeat" anything. It was just a useful look at the personalist dimension of human sexuality, which Von Hildebrand has a good command of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:48 AM']If a couple truly NEEDS to delay having children right away, then that couple NEEDS to remain abstinent so as to not get pregnant. Thus, their marriage would be better postponed. [right][snapback]908014[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Citations from the Magisterium, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:48 AM']It wasn't meant to "defeat" anything. It was just a useful look at the personalist dimension of human sexuality, which Von Hildebrand has a good command of. [right][snapback]908015[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, she really does, but I don't think it's fair to throw her in a discussion that she doesn't (to my knowledge) address directly. I don't think she would advocate marriage of two people perfectly capable of conceiving a child, planning to delay having children. To say so is twisting her words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:47 AM']toledo_jesus alice von hildebrand freaking rocks. don't diss her. that said, I don't think anything era might has posted from her "defeats" anything. No, marriage is not merely about procreation, but, in essence, procreation is the heart of marriage (marriage... 'mater'.. mother/motherhod). If a couple cannot provide for a child as soon as they are married, then they ought to postpone the marriage. NFP is a method of spacing births, not avoiding birth completely (if you need to do that, then you need abstinence and might as well just postpone the wedding). [right][snapback]908013[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yeah, I don't dispute that she's "with it" as far as orthodoxy. I just found the quotes irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:50 AM']Citations from the Magisterium, please. [right][snapback]908016[/snapback][/right] [/quote] well, perhaps you should provide where it specifically addresses NFP use among newlyweds before we dispute anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:50 AM']Citations from the Magisterium, please. [right][snapback]908016[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Era... the primary purpose of marriage IS procreation. Read any document on marriage. newlyweds PURPOSELY planning to avoid that end should not be getting married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:50 AM']Yes, she really does, but I don't think it's fair to throw her in a discussion that she doesn't (to my knowledge) address directly. [right][snapback]908017[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, I disagree. The question of the "meaning" and the "purpose" of marriage, which she distinguishes (following the lead of JP2), is essential to this discussion of NFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:52 AM']Era... the primary purpose of marriage IS procreation. Read any document on marriage. newlyweds PURPOSELY planning to avoid that end should not be getting married. [right][snapback]908023[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1) The Church teaches that a couple can delay pregnancy if necessary. 2) You are claiming that they can only do so after they've had children (and, hence, can't delay pregnancy right after getting married). 3) You have not substantiated this claim from the teaching of the Church. Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:53 AM']Well, I disagree. The question of the "meaning" and the "purpose" of marriage, which she distinguishes (following the lead of JP2), is essential to this discussion of NFP. [right][snapback]908025[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, marriage is more than merely the begetting of children. But it does not and cannot exclude them. the unfortunate cases where infertility exists is a fact usually known AFTER the wedding, and the lack of childbearing is an unfortunate and uncontrollable situation... But it is NOT self-imposed, as it would be with newlyweds using NFP. you are twisting her words out of context and meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:55 AM']the unfortunate cases where infertility exists is a fact usually known AFTER the wedding, and the lack of childbearing is an unfortunate and uncontrollable situation. [right][snapback]908029[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is not true. An elderly couple knows that they cannot have children before they even get married (and sometimes a young woman or man knows that they cannot beget or conceive children). The Church has no problem with them getting married, and she doesn't stipulate that they can only do so when they're able to afford to adopt. Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:54 AM']1) The Church teaches that a couple can delay pregnancy if necessary. 2) You are claiming that they can only do so after they've had children (and, hence, can't delay pregnancy right after getting married). 3) You have not substantiated this claim from the teaching of the Church. [right][snapback]908027[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The Church teaches a couple MAY delay pregnancy for GRAVE reasons. If these GRAVE reasons exist prior to the marriage, then the marriage should be postponed until the couple is in a more stable situation. Find me one document that espouses NFP/child-delay specifically for newlyweds... the burden of "proof" in this scenario is on your shoulders, to show why a couple facing GRAVE reasons for not getting pregnant has GRAVER reasons for getting married and defying the purpose of the conjugal act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts